COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Future cash payments and commitments required under arrangements pursuant to contracts entered into by the Company in the normal course of business as of December 31, 2015 are as follows:



	Payments Due by Period
	Total		Year 1		Years 2-3		Years 4-5		More than 5 years
Off balance sheet arrangements:
Purchase obligations (a)	$	5,190,648	$	1,982,231	$	2,451,658	$	719,281	$	37,478
Guarantees (b)	34,360		17,016		16,319		1,025		—
Letters of credit (c)	71,686		2,071		69,615		—		—
Total	$	5,296,694	$	2,001,318	$	2,537,592	$	720,306	$	37,478

(a)

Purchase obligations primarily include contractual commitments with various programming vendors to provide video services to customers and minimum purchase obligations to purchase goods or services. Future fees payable under contracts with programming vendors are based on numerous factors, including the number of subscribers receiving the programming. Amounts reflected above related to programming agreements are based on the number of subscribers receiving the programming as of December 2015 multiplied by the per subscriber rates or the stated annual fee, as applicable, contained in the executed agreements in effect as of December 31, 2015.

(b)

Includes franchise and performance surety bonds primarily for the Company's Cable segment. Also includes outstanding guarantees primarily by CSC Holdings in favor of certain financial institutions in respect of ongoing interest expense obligations in connection with the monetization of the Company's holdings of shares of Comcast common stock. Does not include CSC Holdings' guarantee of Newsday's obligations under its $480,000 senior secured loan facility. Payments due by period for these arrangements represent the year in which the commitment expires.


(c)	Consists primarily of letters of credit obtained by CSC Holdings in favor of insurance providers and certain governmental authorities for the Cable segment. Payments due by period for these arrangements represent the year in which the commitment expires.

Many of the Company's franchise agreements and utility pole leases require the Company to remove its cable wires and other equipment upon termination of the respective agreements. The Company has concluded that the fair value of these asset retirement obligations cannot be reasonably estimated since the range of potential settlement dates is not determinable.

Legal Matters

Cable Operations Litigation

Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC: The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 7, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to approval by the Court. On December 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, conditional certification of the settlement class, and approval of a class notice distribution plan. A decision is pending. In the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded estimated charges associated with the settlement totaling $12,800, of which $9,500 is reflected in selling, general and administrative expense, and $3,300, representing the cost of benefits to class members that are reasonably expected to be provided, is reflected as a reduction to revenue, net. It is possible that the amount ultimately paid in connection with the settlement could exceed the amount recorded.

In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation: Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expired on February 27, 2015. Expert discovery commenced on May 5, 2014, and concluded on December 8 and 28, 2015, when the Court ruled on the pending expert discovery motions. On January 26, 2016, the Court approved a schedule for filing of summary judgment motions. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Patent Litigation

Cablevision is named as a defendant in certain lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of the Company's businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants. In certain of these cases the Company expects that any potential liability would be the responsibility of the Company's equipment vendors pursuant to applicable contractual indemnification provisions. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Other Litigation

Arnold Wandel v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.: On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Cablevision, the Company’s Board of Directors, Altice and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision’s stockholders by approving the sale of the Company to Altice for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to preclude other potential acquirers from tendering superior proposals, and that Altice aided and abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief blocking the closing of the Merger, rescission of the Merger were it to close, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The parties agreed to suspend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On December 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved on December 11, 2015. The Company believes this matter is now concluded.

James R. Gould, Jr. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.: On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Cablevision, the Company’s Board of Directors, Altice and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision’s stockholders by, among other reasons, failing to properly value the Company and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Cablevision to its public stockholders in connection with the sale of the Company to Altice, and that Altice, Cablevision and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks injunctive relief blocking the closing of the Merger, unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The parties agreed to suspend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On December 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved on December 11, 2015. The Company believes this matter is now concluded.

Friedman v. Charles Dolan, et al.: On March 7, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the nominal defendant Cablevision against the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), the Chairman of the Board, and certain other members of Cablevision's Board of Directors, including the members of the Compensation Committee. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties to preserve corporate assets by allegedly causing or allowing Cablevision to grant excessive compensation packages to the CEO, the Chairman of the Board, and/or other members of the Board of Directors in the time period 2010 to 2012. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement, costs, and attorneys' fees. Cablevision filed a pro forma answer on April 14, 2014, and on April 21, 2014 the individual defendants filed notices of motions to dismiss in lieu of an answer. The motions to dismiss were filed on June 16, 2014. Oral argument took place on January 23, 2015. On June 30, 2015, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss. On July 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On September 14, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew her appeal. The Company believes this matter is now concluded.

In April 2011, Thomas C. Dolan, a director and Executive Vice President, Strategy and Development, in the Office of the Chairman at Cablevision, filed a lawsuit against Cablevision and Rainbow Media Holdings LLC (which was subsequently dismissed as a party) in New York State Supreme Court. The lawsuit raised compensation-related claims related to events largely from 2005 to 2008. The matter was handled under the direction of an independent committee of the Board of Directors of Cablevision. In April 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability, with damages to be determined. On June 18, 2015, the Company filed a notice of appeal. On February 8, 2016, Cablevision and Thomas C. Dolan entered into a settlement pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay plaintiff $21,000 and plaintiff released all claims. A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was approved and entered by the Court on February 8, 2016, and payment was made the same day. The appeal has also been withdrawn. In connection with the settlement, Charles F. Dolan and James L. Dolan have entered into an agreement to pay the Company, in the aggregate, $6,000 in partial reimbursement of the Company’s settlement payment to Thomas C. Dolan if the Company’s pending merger with Altice is not consummated. The Company recorded an expense of $21,000 which is reflected in discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2015 (see Note 5).

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is party to various lawsuits, some involving claims for substantial damages. Although the outcome of these other matters cannot be predicted and the impact of the final resolution of these other matters on the Company's results of operations in a particular subsequent reporting period is not known, management does not believe that the resolution of these other lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company or the ability of the Company to meet its financial obligations as they become due.